15 Comments:

John Kerry is 71 years old and was riding up a 3000 meter climb. Just because he happened to be on a business trip in the region.

The vast majority of 71 year olds in the United States have trouble walking up flights of stairs - the owner of this blog being a prime example. After Kerry heals from his broken leg he will still be in the top 5% in terms of general health amongst US Citizens.

No, the story shows that this is the sort of thing that can happen when you ride a bike, as the link I provided shows. Typical that you didn't check it out. Typical too that you know nothing about my level of fitness, just that I'm an old guy that you assume is in bad condition.

Who might imagine George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Bono all having something in common - injuries from solo bike falls!

John Kerry has been a sporty guy all his life: sailing, skiing, snowboarding, skating, hockey, motorcycling, running, yachting, cycling etc. He has had knee surgery and both hips replaced. Rumors are that his black eyes supposedly from a hockey fall were from plastic surgery. One might suppose motorcycling would be the sport most likely to injure him. No. Turns out it was bicycling.

That's the Big Lie they push, that cycling safety is all about those wicked motor vehicles, not that riding a bike involves a degree of risk out front. I respect cyclists who acknowledge the risk and do it anyhow. But Budnick, Shahum et al just act like they represent a special interest group and their job is to push that agenda. They aren't wrong, since that's what they're paid to do.

The real blame lies with the SFMTA and City Hall for essentially adopting policies that favor that special interest group against the interests of the overwhelming majority of people in the city.

Except for cyclists, the evidence we have shows that city streets haven't been getting more dangerous, and a lot of the cycling accidents are solo falls like the one Kerry had that don't involve motorists.

the comment was "That's the Big Lie they push, that cycling safety is all about those wicked motor vehicles, not that riding a bike involves a degree of risk out front. "

Rob mentions "wicked motorists" so I'm curious. What does the city ever tell motorists about the risk they pose to pedestrians & bikers while driving on the city streets? What are people taught about their risk of dying in a motor vehicle accident on the city streets? Why is it that you expect the risks of cycling to be ever present, but not for the biggest cause of traffic deaths?

The dangers posed by motor vehicles are well-known, and City Hall and the Bicycle Coalition assume they pose the greatest danger to pedestrians and cyclists. In fact all three of the cyclists who died on city streets last year were responsible for their own deaths by reckless behavior. Ditto for half the pedestrians that died last year.

The city and the coalition are also encouraging even children to ride bikes on city streets, which is grossly irresponsible.

More than 40% of cycling injury accidents are "cyclist-only" accidents that don't involve another vehicle, but riding a bike is supposedly a green, win-win deal for everyone.

Does the city encourage people to drive their cars downtown, in pedestrian rich environments, not telling them the risks they pose TO pedestrians and cyclists.

You act like all things are equal, and that the city owes it to tell the pedestrians and cyclists of the risks associated with doing that in the city.

How can you sit here and argue that it's reckless for children, bikers, and pedestrians to be in the city with the risk of injury and death posed by motorists, and yet it wouldn't have a responsibility to limit the amount of harm caused by having too many motorists driving around?

Regardless of any moral issues, it stands to reason that there should be a limit to how many cars are driving around the city which cause deaths, either by hitting people, or people getting hit by them. It's all the same type of human behavior. Limit what kills.

"Does the city encourage people to drive their cars downtown, in pedestrian rich environments, not telling them the risks they pose TO pedestrians and cyclists."

I'm guessing that this repetitive commenter is not a licensed driver in California and is ignorant of the training that prospective drivers must engage in to become licensed. The California Drivers Manual is full of instructions and directives on how to minimize the inherent danger that cars pose to pedestrians, cyclists and their own occupants. And no-one is permitted to operate a car on public roads until well into their teens, and only when accompanied by an adult during training.

From traffic rules to signage to seat belts to air bags to mandatory insurance to the blood-alcohol-content charts enclosed with vehicle registration renewal stickers, car culture is marinated in danger awareness.

In all likelihood that same danger awareness contributes to most peoples' completely-rational choice of means other than bicycles to get from place to place. Despite all the cyclepaths' deliberate efforts to promote willful ignorance of cycling's inherent danger, plenty of people are paying enough attention to conclude that if they avoid bicycles and stick to cars, buses and trains their likelihood of personal injury, per mile traveled, will be much lower than that of cyclists.